What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220406 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5220406?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,752.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.64 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,507.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $983.61 awarded to landlord; Statement And Insurance Statement: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220406?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220406?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220406 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5220406?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,752.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.64 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,507.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $983.61 awarded to landlord; Statement And Insurance Statement: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220406?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220406?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220406 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220406 — net $78.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,507.00		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		123. The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$983.61		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$600.00		81. This part of the claim is proven.
Repairs: Insurance excess	$500.00		Repairs: Insurance excess
Missing / damaged chattels	$1,752.97		Missing / damaged chattels
Lock/key replacement	$184.64		Lock/key replacement
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes		$250.00	Failure to provide healthy homes
statement and insurance statement		$7,200.00	statement and insurance statement
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	123. The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable.
Total award	$7,555.22	$7,477.00
Net award		$78.22
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$78.22

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220406 — net $78.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,507.00		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		123. The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$983.61		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$600.00		81. This part of the claim is proven.
Repairs: Insurance excess	$500.00		Repairs: Insurance excess
Missing / damaged chattels	$1,752.97		Missing / damaged chattels
Lock/key replacement	$184.64		Lock/key replacement
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy homes		$250.00	Failure to provide healthy homes
statement and insurance statement		$7,200.00	statement and insurance statement
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	123. The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable.
Total award	$7,555.22	$7,477.00
Net award		$78.22
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$78.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The property is an older style wooden house that was re-located to this rural location in 2008. Ms Thompson lived at the property with her former partner, and then on her own after they separated. The house required renovation / refurbishment, which Ms Thompson was undertaking over time. Ms Thompson did not intend to rent out the property. She only did so because of financial pressure.
The tenancy began in September 2024. [The tenant/s] was aware of the condition of the premises. The tenancy ended in March 2025 pursuant to a 42- day notice issued by the landlord. The validity of this notice is one of the issues in the tenant’s application and is discussed in more detail below.
[The tenant/s] filed her application on 29 May 2025. The hearing for that application took place in [event location suppressed] on 28 July 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing.
Ms Thompson filed a cross-application on 10 August 2025. A hearing was scheduled for 3 October 2025. The hearing could not proceed, for reasons that are set out in my adjournment order dated 6 October 2025.
The adjourned hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 14 January 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation / exemplary damages in respect of failure to lodge the bond, statements in the tenancy agreement, healthy homes standards, maintenance, compliance with all legislation in respect of buildings health and safety, smoke alarms, breach of quiet enjoyment, and the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, rubbish removal, cleaning, repairs, methamphetamine testing costs, replacement of missing chattels, and replacement of locks. Tenant application Bond
The tenancy agreement provided for rent of $600 per week to be paid in advance, and a bond of $1,200.
The tenancy began on 1 September 2024.
[The tenant/s] paid $1200 on 28 August 2024. Her next payment, of $600, was on 4 September 2024.
Ms Thompson said that she treated the $1200 as two weeks’ rent in advance, not as bond. The payment shows as rent in Ms Thompson’s rent record.
[The tenant/s] said that this payment was supposed to be the bond, which Ms Thompson failed to forward to the Bond Centre.
Landlords must forward all bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23- working days of receipt. 1 Failure to do so is an unlawful act, and the Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages to the tenant of up to $1500. 2
It is unclear why Ms Thompson thought that [The tenant/s] paid two weeks’ rent in advance. The tenancy agreement does not provide for this, and there is no evidence of any verbal agreement that [The tenant/s] would pay two weeks’ rent in advance.
However, I accept that this was a genuine misunderstanding. Ms Thompson treated this payment as rent. If she had not done so, [The tenant/s]’s rent arrears would increase by $1,200.
Exemplary damages are punitive – they are intended to punish and deter certain breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act. For that reason, the Tribunal will only award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that the breach was intentional. 3
My finding is that it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance. It is not the case that Ms Thompson intentionally failed to pay the bond to the Bond Centre. She genuinely understood that [The tenant/s] never paid the bond. No statements in the tenancy agreement
Landlords must provide tenants with a written tenancy agreement. 4
The written agreement must include certain information, including: a. A statement as to whether or not there is insulation in the premises. 5 b. A statement that the landlord has complied, or will comply, with the healthy homes standards. 6 c. A statement as to whether or not the landlord holds insurance for the premises, and if so, what is the amount of the excess for any claim. 7
Failure to provide these statements is an unlawful act. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $750.00 for this unlawful act. 1 Section 19(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 19(2) RTA 3 Section 109(3) RTA 4 Section 13 5 Section 13A(1A) RTA 6 Section 13A(1CA) RTA 7 Section 13A(2) RTA
In this instance there was a written tenancy agreement on the standard Tenancy Services form, but there was very little information in the agreement. The landlord did not provide an insulation, healthy homes, or insurance statement.
This was an unlawful act, and it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.
In considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 8 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
[The tenant/s] was aware of the partially repaired condition of the house. It was obvious that the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. The tenancy was casual and informal.
This does not remove the legal duty to provide the statements set out above. That is a mandatory obligation for all tenancies. However, it is a relevant factor when considering an award of exemplary damages.
I will award exemplary damages of $250.00. Smoke alarms
Landlords must ensure that there are complying smoke alarms in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. 9
There were no smoke alarms in the property for the duration of this tenancy.
Ms Thompson acknowledged that this was an oversight on her part and she apologised to [The tenant/s].
Exemplary damages for this, and other breaches of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, is discussed below. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 10 8 Section 109 RTA 9 Section 45(1)(ba) RTA 10 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA
The standards impose obligations in respect of heating, ventilation, draught stopping, insulation, and moisture ingress and drainage.
The premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in respect of ventilation, draught stopping, and insulation.
The premises arguably meet the healthy homes standards in respect of heating (there is a wood burner in the lounge) and moisture and drainage ([The tenant/s] did not experience problems with dampness or with stormwater pooling around the property). Maintenance
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the “age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes”. 11
The “age and character” consideration is particularly relevant here. [The tenant/s] knew that the house was a ‘work in progress’. She entered into the tenancy on the understanding that it would be a long-term tenancy and that Ms Thompson would continue to renovate the house as time and funds allowed.
[The tenant/s] raised several specific repair / maintenance issues: a. Electrical fittings. b. Window latches. c. The stove. d. The floor in the sun room.
Some of the light switches and power points are not properly secured to the wall, or are installed poorly, with holes/gaps in the wall around the edges of the fitting. Ms Thompson said that the electrical fittings were safe. The porch light did not work. Ms Thompson said that she was not informed about this during the tenancy.
Many of the window latches were broken.
The stove stopped working and [The tenant/s] let Ms Thompson know about this. [The tenant/s] said that after waiting a long time for Ms Thompson to do something about it, she eventually was able to get the stove working herself.
Ms Thompson accepted that she was aware of an issue with the stove and she was going to arrange for an electrician, but she forgot about it. 11 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
The floor in the sunroom is rotting to the extent that there is a hole in the floor in a corner. Ms Thompson said that she was not made aware of this during the tenancy.
My findings are: a. The fact that some parts of the house were in a poor condition does not amount to a breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty. [The tenant/s] was aware that the house was a ‘work in progress’ when she took on the tenancy. b. The broken window latches, along with unpainted walls, holes, etc is part of that overall “age and character of the premises”. There is no evidence that the electrical fittings are unsafe. c. It is not proven that the specific problems of the porch light not working and the sunroom floor rotting were brought to Ms Thompson’s attention during the tenancy. d. The problem with the stove was brought to Ms Thompson’s attention during the tenancy and she failed to take action. This is the only proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. Deck
Landlords must “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises”. 12
It is not disputed that the deck does not have a railing, which it is legally required to have because of the height of the deck from ground level.
Ms Thompson provided [The tenant/s] with some fencing to put around the deck, but she accepted that this did not meet the legal requirement for a fixed barrier.
This is a proven landlord’s obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety. Exemplary damages – smoke alarms, healthy homes, compliance with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety, and maintenance
The Tenancy Tribunal must take a ‘global approach’ and make one award of exemplary damages under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, even if there have been breaches of multiple different obligations that landlords owe under that section. 13 12 Section 45(1)(c) RTA 13 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583
The maximum award of exemplary damages for a breach of the landlord’s duties under section 45 is $7,200.00.
In this instance, there are proven breaches in respect of the landlord’s obligations to comply with the requirements in respect of smoke alarms (section 45(1)(ba)), to comply with the healthy homes standards (section 45(1)(bb)), to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety (section 45(1)(c)), and (to a lesser extent) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45(1)(b)).
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 14 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. Ms Thompson may have been unaware of some of the specific respects in which the premises did not meet the legal standards for rental properties, but she was aware that the house was in a partially repaired condition. Although [The tenant/s] was also aware of the condition of the property, that does not remove Ms Thompson’s obligation to meet the mandatory standards. b. Some of the breaches exposed [The tenant/s] and her whanau to unnecessary risk (no smoke alarms, no railing on deck). Some of the breaches meant that the home was not as comfortable and liveable as it could have been (healthy homes standards not met, failure to repair stove). c. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their legal duties, to provide safe, warm, and habitable rental properties.
Having regard to the fact that there are multiple breaches, some of them of a serious nature, I will award the maximum exemplary damages of $7,200.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. 15 14 Section 109 RTA 15 Section 38(2) RTA
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 16
Ms Thompson had a shipping container on the property where she kept work tools and other items. It was part of the tenancy agreement that Ms Thompson had the right to go onto the property to access the container.
[The tenant/s] did not object to Ms Thompson coming onto the property and accessing the container, but she argued that the way that [The tenant/s] went about this caused an unreasonable interference with her peace and privacy. She said that: a. She did not understand that [The tenant/s] would be there as often as she was, sometimes several times a day. b. Ms Thompson did not drive around the agreed pathway to get to the container, but she took a shortcut near the deck. c. Ms Thompson often engaged her in conversation. She felt uncomfortable about this but did not want to be rude.
Ms Thompson denied all of these allegations.
The fact that Ms Thompson came onto the property and accessed the container was an interference with [The tenant/s]’s peace and privacy, but it was a reasonable interference because the parties agreed these terms from the beginning.
There was no specific agreement about the frequency of [The tenant/s]’s visits. [The tenant/s] only accessed the container during the daytime. Usually she was only there for a short time.
It is not proven that Ms Thompson took a short-cut and drove near the deck.
I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] felt uncomfortable with Ms Thompson engaging her in conversation, but this is a matter of different personalities. There was no intention to harass [The tenant/s].
My finding is that there is no basis for any award of damages under this heading. Termination
Ms Thompson gave [The tenant/s] a 42-day notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that she intended to move back in.
[The tenant/s] argued that the notice was retaliatory. She said that several days before, Ms Thompson had come to the house and asked if she could come 16 Section 38(3) RTA inside to take a photograph of an appliance for the purpose of an insurance claim. [The tenant/s] said no, because it was an inconvenient time. They agreed that Ms Thompson could come back a few days later.
When she returned, Ms Thompson came inside, took the photograph she wanted, and then gave [The tenant/s] the termination notice.
[The tenant/s] said that in her view the notice was retaliatory. She said that her refusal to allow Ms Thompson entry was the first time that she “stood up for herself”, and the felt that the termination notice was a punishment for that action.
Ms Thompson denied this. She said that [The tenant/s] was entitled to refuse her entry and this did not bother her. They made an arrangement for her to come back several days later, which was no problem.
Ms Thompson said that her reason for terminating the tenancy was that [The tenant/s] was in rent arrears. She said that she rented out the house because she was under severe financial pressure – there was a real possibility that her bank would force a mortgagee sale – and if [The tenant/s] was not going to pay the rent, then she was better off moving back into the house herself and getting flatmates or boarders.
I accept Ms Thompson’s explanation of her motivation for terminating the tenancy.
The termination was not retaliatory. In giving the notice, Ms Thompson was not motivated by [The tenant/s] exercising a legal right or power, or raising a legitimate complaint about the tenancy.
Landlords can give 42-days notice rather than the default 90-days if they (or a member of their family) requires the premises as their principal place of residence. 17
In this instance Ms Thompson did not “require the premises” in the sense that she had nowhere else to live. However, I accept she did require the premises in the sense that she found herself in a position where she was financially unable to continue with the tenancy, and she genuinely intended to (and did in fact) move back into the tenanted property.
Therefore I find that there is no breach of a legal duty under this heading, and no grounds for an award of damages. Landlord application Rent arrears 17 Section 51(2)(a) RTA
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for rent arrears. Rubbish removal
Tenants must remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 18
The claim seeks $983.61, being the cost of two skip bins plus an overweight charge.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that she left rubbish behind, but she disputed whether she left two skip bins’ worth. [The tenant/s] said that she left a pile of items outside, and she grouped furniture together in the lounge.
Ms Thompson provided photographs. This tenancy ended on 25 March. Some of Ms Thompson’s photographs were taken on 1 April. Some were taken significantly later, in the first week of August 2025. [The tenant/s] said that Ms Thompson’s photographs do not show the way that she left things.
On balance I think that the landlord’s claim for $983.61 is fair and reasonable having regard to the following factors: a. This is an actual cost that Ms Thompson paid. b. The claim does not seek any labour for loading up the bins. c. Although [The tenant/s]’s concerns about the dates of the photographs is a reasonable one, I do not think that Ms Thompson would have brought rubbish onto the property after [The tenant/s] left. Therefore, I am satisfied that the rubbish that Ms Thompson put into the bins belonged to [The tenant/s].
This part of the claim is proven. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 19
Because this is a subjective standard, the Tribunal is heavily reliant on visual evidence (photographs, video) when determining cleaning claims.
Ms Thompson provided photographs in support of this part of her claim. Some of the photographs were taken on 1 April, and some in August. For obvious reasons the photographs taken in August are substantially less relevant.
The evidence is sufficient to show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 18 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA 19 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Ms Thompson carried out the cleaning herself.
On the evidence available to me I will award $600 for cleaning to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard at the end of the tenancy, based on 20 hours of cleaning at $30 per hour. Repairs
Ms Thompson submitted an invoice from [Construction company] for $10,762.51 for the repair of various damage, which Ms Thompson considered to be tenant damage.
At the hearing on 14 January, Ms Thompson confirmed that she had received payment from her insurer for all of the damage, subject to a $500.00 excess.
[The tenant/s] disputed all of the damage.
I am satisfied that Ms Thompson has proven careless / intentional damage for which the tenant is liable, to the amount of $500.00, which is the extent of her claim against [The tenant/s] after having received payment from her insurer. The proven damage is: a. The bottom section of the pull-down attic stairs is missing. [The tenant/s] agreed that the stairs were intact during her tenancy. Ms Thompson’s photograph (from 1 April) shows that the bottom section of the stairs is missing. [The tenant/s] was not aware of this damage or how it could have happened, but Ms Thompson only has to prove that it is damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurred during the tenancy. b. The pantry cupboard has small holes in it consistent with it being shot repeatedly with an air gun. Ms Thompson provided photographs showing the holes and a close-up photo showing an air gun pellet lodged in a shelf. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that her son had an air gun but said that she was not aware of this damage. I am satisfied that it is damage that occurred during her tenancy and it is not fair wear and tear.
The cost of repairing these instances of damage comfortably exceeds $500.00.
The claim is proven. Lawnmower
There was a ride-on lawnmower at the premises at the start of the tenancy. The mower was kept outside. Ms Thompson said that it had a cover over it. [The tenant/s] said that it was not covered and it was overgrown with grass.
At the beginning of the tenancy the mower could be started but the blades would not engage, so it could not cut grass. [The tenant/s]’s partner said that he thought he could get it working. Ms Thompson said they were welcome to use it.
[The tenant/s]’s partner was able to get it working and they used it during the tenancy.
In the latter stages of the tenancy Ms Thompson took the mower away after she saw it at the property with the engine cover off.
Ms Thompson took the mower to [The power equipment store] who quoted $1,474.62 to repair it. Ms Thompson made an insurance claim.
The claim was accepted, and Ms Thompson received $1,174.62 from her insurer. The claim against [The tenant/s] seeks the excess of $300.00.
Ms Thompson holds [The tenant/s] liable for the lawnmower on the grounds that [The tenant/s] (or her partner) damaged it by “removing parts”.
[The tenant/s] said that her partner temporarily removed the battery from the lawnmower to use to jump start a vehicle, but this is not the “missing parts” that Ms Thompson is referring to.
I was provided with a text message from [The power equipment store] but not the actual quote detailing the work that they carried out.
This was not a new lawnmower. Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage to chattels, but not for maintenance costs, which fall to the landlord.
The evidence provided to me does not prove that the tenant removed parts from the lawnmower, or carelessly / intentionally damaged it in any other way.
The claim is dismissed. Damaged / missing chattels
The claim seeks the cost of replacing 3 curtain tracks that were damaged or missing.
There is sufficient evidence to prove the claim for $69.51.
The claim for replacement of 12 terracotta pots is proven.
The claim for replacement of 4 pool panels is proven.
The claim for replacement of 2 plywood sheets is proven.
In respect of all of these claims, there is sufficient evidence that these items were at the property during Ms Thompson’s tenancy but were missing at the end. Ms Thompson does not have to prove how or when they went missing, only that they went missing during the tenancy.
The cost of replacing these items is proven.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for net curtains. I have applied depreciation of 50% to the new replacement cost. Net curtains are fragile, short life-span items.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for curtain replacement in part. It is clear enough that some of the curtains were missing, but the evidence around exactly how many were missing is unclear. The claim seeks the cost of replacing 5 curtains. I will award half of that cost.
The claims for a missing microwave and magnetic knife holder are proven. No evidence was provided about the cost / value of these items. Ms Thompson said that she was given the microwave approximately 2-3 years ago. Its depreciated value would be no more than $50. I will award $30 for the knife holder.
The total proven claim for replacement of damaged or missing chattels is $1,752.97 per the table below: Curtain tracks x 3$69.51 Terracotta pots x 12$434.43 Pool panels x 4$685.40 Curtains (net)$52.90 Curtains$196.13 Plywood sheets x 2$234.60 Microwave$50.00 Magnetic knife holder$30.00 TOTAL:$1,752.97 Change of locks
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must return all keys to the landlord. 20
At the beginning of the tenancy [The tenant/s] was given a key for the front and back door. Keys for the internal doors were in the locks.
[The tenant/s] said that she left the keys in the locks when she vacated.
Ms Thompson said that she did not receive any keys back and that some of the locks (such as the patio door bolt lock) were broken. 20 Section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA
I am satisfied that Ms Thompson did not receive back all of the keys that she provided at the beginning of the tenancy, and that the patio bolt was broken (photograph provided).
The claim seeks the cost of materials only.
The claim is proven and is fair and reasonable. Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties were successful or partially successful in their applications. I will award the filing fee to both parties. 21
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] was “substantially successful” in the proceedings and therefore I will grant name suppression. 22 Ms Thompson did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220406 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220406 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions